The present invention relates to documentation in the construction industry. The design and construction industry is one of the largest sectors of our nation's economy, generating nearly 5 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. One million major construction projects take place per year. As part of the design of any major building project, thousands of documents are generated and exchanged between architects, engineers, contractors, and clients.
During the construction phase of most building projects, contractors will typically provide submittals, or “shop drawings,” to the architects and engineers to document the exact materials and assemblies that will be used in the building. The architect reviews the shop drawings, shares them with consultants, and indicates whether they meet the requirements of the project specifications. Shop drawing review is a critical check-and-balance during construction to ensure that the end result meets the quality levels desired by the client and called for in the architect's design.
While shop drawing review is an integral part of the construction process, the methodology used to perform it is cumbersome and inefficient. Thousands of paper documents and hardcopies are produced, resulting in a significant cost of materials, shipping and time. A typical mid-size (20-employee) architecture firm might spend $35,000 or more a year on shipping and administrative tasks related to processing over 400,000 pieces of paper received as part of submittal review for their design projects.
An additional complication is that there are numerous rules and conventions that have been developed by the design and construction industry over the course of time to regulate the flow of paper submittals and shop drawings, ensure the architect's ability to control the review process, and address legal liability for reviews and other special considerations. An example of such a rule or consideration is the need to apply one of several possible different systems of submittal numbering to all submittals provided by a contractor, or variations thereof. Another example is the need of the architect and their consultants to use customized review or action codes and terminology that has been developed in conjunction with their legal counsel. Yet another example is the need of the architect to be able to control when consultant-reviewed submittals are returned to the contractor and to be able to prevent the contractor from viewing the items until the architect has verified that review is complete. A still further example is the need of the architect to maintain control over a centralized, detailed tracking log that records status, review dates, version histories, and actions for all project submittals regardless whether they are electronic submittals, paper items, physical samples, or any other format. Various approaches have been attempted to improve the submittal review process, but all approaches to date have failed to address these and other fundamental rules and controls that are required to make the process functional for architects.
Approaches that have been attempted include, for example, U.S. Patent Application, Publication No. US 2005/0188299 A1 (“System and method for generating construction document submittal packages”) to Furman et al., which is directed towards a system and method for generating construction submittal document packages. Furman et al., however, takes a different view of the process, by focusing on selecting pre-established documents to include within a submittal package. It does not provide any type of central hub for contractors, architects, and consultants to be involved in transfer, review, or tracking of construction submittals.
U.S. Patent Application, Publication No. US 2005/0108232 A1 (“Electronic submittal method and system”) to Rockey proposes an online system for the exchange of electronic construction submittals. Such a system does not provide an architect with primary control and does not address the rules for submittal management that are required by architects. This system does not offer any features for tracking or management of paper submittals or physical samples that are not sent electronically. The system does not provide a central submittal log from which to manage information for all project submittals, regardless of format. In addition, the system is very narrow in its interpretation of how the submittal process functions—for example, providing only four pre-defined actions that can be taken by a reviewer on a submittal, instead of allowing the Architect or Consultant to define their own review actions.
U.S. Patent Application, Publication No. US 2005/0044010 A1 (“System and method of producing construction specifications”) to Jannott, et al., proposes a system for creating construction project specifications based on selections from users. It does not address the exchange or review of construction submittals.
U.S. Patent Application, Publication No. US 2004/0215633 A1 (“Construction project submittal management”) to Harris is directed towards a network based construction project management system. The Harris publication describes a system for submittal review that is primarily controlled by the Contractor, not the Architect, and does not address the rules for submittal management that are required by architects. In addition, the proposed system included significant components (online generation of actual submittal packets, financial management and release of payments from the Contractor to suppliers/subcontractors) that are not relevant to this invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,687,559 (“Apparatus and method for a vertically integrated construction business”) to Radjy, et al., discusses a process for creating construction specifications for concrete recipes. The process does not address general submittal exchange and review.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,038,547 (“Construction tracking and payment method and system”) to Casto describes construction management software that tracks job completion and payments to subcontractors. The software does not specifically track or manage the submittal review process.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,092,050 (“Graphical computer system and method for financial estimating and project management”) to Lundgren, et al., describes a system for preparing construction bids and managing projects. The system does not specifically address tracking or management of the submittal review process.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,446,053 (“Computer-implemented method and system for producing a proposal for a construction project”) to Elliot proposes a system for developing and submitting construction bids. The software does not specifically track or manage the submittal review process.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,393,410 (“Process and a system for listing information relating to a construction project over a computer network”) to Thompson discusses a construction management system that allows for project specifications and submittals to be stored online for the purpose of being purchased by other parties or submitting proposals on projects. The system does not specifically address tracking or management of the submittal review process.
Thus, although there have been attempts to address various aspects of the problems regarding documentation in the construction industry, problems remain and all attempts to date have failed to adequately address the rules and considerations that are required by architects to manage the traditional paper-based construction submittal process. What is needed is a method and system for facilitating the exchange and review of construction submittals that adequately addresses these rules and considerations.